That's my point. As long as any path would require more than one step there would have to be a reason why that organism did not surive through all the other paths available for that organism to survive

When you walk randomly through a forest you make your own path right? You didnt choose between multiple paths but chose each step. When you finish you call it the path you took.

At any given point in time, the survival method of each and every organism on the face of this planet should constantly radiate into every possible survival method available - UNLESS there is something confining it to only one of those methods.

For the organism the steps are each mutation. Once they have taken one we cannot really tell what the next one will be. Admittedly if one survival method appears then there may be selection pressure against others due to inconvenience. Not sure if i addressed your problem.

Why, for example, would the closest survival method for a reptile be to fly, which would require a HUGE number of steps, rather than to change diet if lack of a particular diet was threatening its existance, or develop longer and faster legs if predators were threatening its existence.

I think you raised the idea of a reptile evolving to bird like. But your right things like diet change or better legs are more likely to appear or at least appear sooner than wings.

There would have to be an incredibly broad range of other survival methods available within that animal's environment than something available outside of its environments.

Sorry i dont quite understand what you are saying here. Could you clarify please?

At any rate, you can not truly believe the gospel as preached and taught by the apostles and evolution. They are completely contradictory.

Ok my mistake.

Here would be the first thing I would have to have, I would have to know how bacteria can evolve into plant and animal cells and then differentiate and organize into plants and animals. At a species level or even a genus level I'm not really all that skeptical that evolution happens, only what the limits are. At the kingdom level you would have to demonstrate something very convincing to persuade me that evolution at the level of kingdom is even possible.

I think your addressing mushy who has been banned. I'm curious, why are you skeptical about evolution occurring at the kingdom level?

I fixed your post for youÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ You have to insure your quote boxes are correctly placed.

Thanks for that.

No problem, it takes a little getting used to. Plus, if not corrected, it becomes pretty hard for other members to follow your post.

First Ã¢â‚¬â€œ microevolution is nothing more than Ã¢â‚¬Å“adaptationÃ¢â‚¬Â within a kind/species; or more succinctly the phenomenaÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s ability to adapt to inside and outside pressures. This is not at issue, as we see it every day. Further, it doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t need to be called Ã¢â‚¬ËœmicroevolutionÃ¢â‚¬â„¢, or even Ã¢â‚¬ËœevolutionÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ at all, as it was always called Ã¢â‚¬ËœadaptationÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ before the evolution crowd came along and changed it, so as to make it support the model of Ã¢â‚¬ËœevolutionÃ¢â‚¬â„¢.

Ok i agree with you on this point.

Thanks, I try to keep things succinct ( for myself as much as anyone else), and the convoluted rabbit trails need to be removed just as chaff is removed from wheat to make it edible.

Second Ã¢â‚¬â€œ macroevolution is the assertion that one species changes Ã¢â‚¬ËœevolvesÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ into another species. For example, an ape like creature Ã¢â‚¬ËœevolvesÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ into a man. Or in chain form; protozoa, to fish, to land mammal, to ape-like creature to man (oversimplified)

Right now im not sure how literally you meant this as you put (oversimplified) but why do you think a species evolves into another species. Heres another analogy. If you take a picture of multiple people everyyear from when they are born till when they are 30, then show the first and last photos to someone, they are often unable to match them up( they are completedly different), but if you show them every picture it is obvious who is who.

First Ã¢â‚¬â€œ I take it quite literally, therefore I oversimplified to save time (mine) and forum space (here). To regurgitate the entire assumed line of succession, as promulgated by evolutionist, from protozoa to man, would prove quite lengthy, and I just donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t have time for that. Further, as I stated, it is assumed/presupposed, as there is no empirical evidence to tie these assumptions together.

Second Ã¢â‚¬â€œ I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t Ã¢â‚¬Å“thinkÃ¢â‚¬Â any Ã¢â‚¬Ëœspecies evolves into another speciesÃ¢â‚¬â„¢. As I said; there is no empirical evidence to tie these assumptions together, therefore, until I see any empirical Ã¢â‚¬Å“realÃ¢â‚¬Â evidence to support said Ã¢â‚¬Å“evolutionÃ¢â‚¬Â, it (evolution) remains a hypothesis/model discussed in the abstract. And, when defended by evolutionists dogmatically, zealously and feverously as a fact or facts, is nothing more than another religion.

Third Ã¢â‚¬â€œ you photograph analogy is weak at best (therefore a non sequitur) because you can absolutely prove Ã¢â‚¬Å“empiricallyÃ¢â‚¬Â the identity of each and every person. But the evidence submitted for macroevolution is presupposed and assumed.

Further, whenever you make a statement like Ã¢â‚¬Å“macroevolution works because future evidence will support itÃ¢â‚¬Â you are committing the logical fallacy of Ã¢â‚¬Å“Argumentum ad FuturisÃ¢â‚¬Â. And since you are making the statement without firstly proving it (i.e. providing actual evidence for your assertions), you are committing the logical fallacy of Ã¢â‚¬Å“Assertum Non Est DemonstratumÃ¢â‚¬Â or Ã¢â‚¬Ëœto assert is not to demonstrateÃ¢â‚¬â„¢.

I see what you mean, i never meant to state that future evidence will support macroevolution and thus that is why it works. I meant more that if we agree on mircoevolution(or adaptation) as having happened and continuing to happen, why shouldn't macroevolution also be happening and have happened. Just so i know, what kind of evidence were you looking for, the most common that comes to mind is fossil but if you would like experiments on evolution i can probably find some of those.

What you are still failing to realize is that when you imply that Ã¢â‚¬Å“microevolution + time = macroevolutionÃ¢â‚¬Â sans any empirical evidence, no matter how you state it, is still Ã¢â‚¬Å“Argumentum ad FuturisÃ¢â‚¬Â because of the Ã¢â‚¬Å“Assertum Non Est DemonstratumÃ¢â‚¬Â!

One type of Ã¢â‚¬ËœEmpiricalÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ evidence would be Ã¢â‚¬Å“gradual transitional fossils showing a lizard type animal Ã¢â‚¬ËœevolvingÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ into a bird type animalÃ¢â‚¬Â. This does not imply a Ã¢â‚¬Å“lizard type animalÃ¢â‚¬Â, then all of a sudden an animal with presupposed mixed features, then all of a sudden (again) a bird type animal. That would be macroevolution of the gaps, and these gaps are too wide for even the bondo of imagination to fill. AND why macroevolution is nothing more than a hypothesis/model discussed in the abstract. And, when defended by evolutionists dogmatically, zealously and feverously as a fact or facts, is nothing more than another religion.

Further, you can indeed submit Ã¢â‚¬Ëœexperiments on evolutionÃ¢â‚¬â„¢, but absolutely none have provided Ã¢â‚¬ËœempiricalÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ evidence to support Ã¢â‚¬ËœmacroÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ thus far. So, if you wish to provide them, you can, but will oyu be willing to admit the fallaciousness built into them as they are pointed out?

Fourth Ã¢â‚¬â€œ You had a couple of loosely based and false analogies, but well just look at the most blatant. You said Ã¢â‚¬Å“It depends what you mean by christ.Ã¢â‚¬Â and Ã¢â‚¬Å“I believe there was a man named Jesus and the bible may provide a rough outline of his life. I dont believe he was anything more than a man.Ã¢â‚¬ÂÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ The first was a question; you then follow it up by two faith statements. Further, the plethora of historical evidence that supports the historicity of Jesus Christ AND that of His followers, further pushes your analogous statements into the faith realm. And to extend it out-and-out, there is far more evidence for Jesus Christ than there ever was for macroevolution.

Im unsure what you mean by false analogies, i use analogies to explain things. When i said Ã¢â‚¬Å“It depends what you mean by christ.Ã¢â‚¬Â( not an analogy) what i meant was that if someone refers to christ they often mean jesus, however by saying christ they often also imply supernatural, which i dont believe. I also dont feel these are faith statements. In my life people dont write accounts of a fictional person's life and make them out to be true, so i can conclude it is likely Jesus was a real person. I also know that back in Jesus's time much was not understood about the world and people would have easily seen quite natural things as supernatural, therefore i feel its reasonable to be skepticle about any 'miracles' performed.

A false analogy is when two totally opposing word pictures are presented, and then an attempt is made to reconcile them, or cobble them together. But the stiches of the seamstress are so obviously glaring, that it becomes easy to unravel it stich by stich (not unlike attempting to put new wine in an old wine skin, then letting it age) and expose the non sequitur. It just doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t work, because the conclusion does not follow from the premises submitted (i.e. Non Sequitur)Ã¢â‚¬Â¦

Also, we ALL uses analogies when explaining everything from our children, to chemistry; from our automobiles to astronomy (etc...). But, as I explained above, false analogies, like fallacious syllogisms, are usually not all that hard to dismantle.

Further, when you attempt to separate the historical Jesus from the spiritual Jesus, based simply on your Ã¢â‚¬Å“beliefsÃ¢â‚¬Â and totally ignore the mounds of historical evidences, your analogy does not follow (non-sequitur).

You assume that the eye witness cannot Ã¢â‚¬ËœsimplyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ describe what they saw. ALL of which, even when viewed today, would be considered miracles.

For example:

When Jesus fed thousands from a few loaves and a few fish, by simply pulling them out of a basket: I would be interested in your current empirical scientific explanation.

When Jesus turned water into wine, without even touching it (i.e. by simply speaking it): I would be interested in your current empirical scientific explanation.

When Jesus raised Lazarus from death, by simply speaking it: I would be interested in your current empirical scientific explanation.

I could go on and on, but I think, when viewed honestly, youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll be able to see the fallacies in your argumentation and analogies.

And finally, what you think is Ã¢â‚¬Å“reasonable to be skepticalÃ¢â‚¬Â about, when you obviously pour so much assumption into your analogy, can easily be exposed for the fallacies youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve built into said opinion. The Ã¢â‚¬Å“critical thinkerÃ¢â‚¬Â looks from all angles, considers all the Ã¢â‚¬Å“evidencesÃ¢â‚¬Â, separates the dross of presupposed opinion, and considers then, only the facts, to arrive at truth.

For the record i realize that i stated that species don't evolve into each other but later talked about reptiles evolving into birds. I did this for the sake of argument and would be happy to clarify if anyone wants.

It is still simply assumption and presupposition; therefore you can indeed clarify all you wish to. I, although, on the other hand, would be more interested in empirical facts and evidences.

I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t Ã¢â‚¬Å“thinkÃ¢â‚¬Â any Ã¢â‚¬Ëœspecies evolves into another speciesÃ¢â‚¬â„¢. As I said; there is no empirical evidence to tie these assumptions together, therefore, until I see any empirical Ã¢â‚¬Å“realÃ¢â‚¬Â evidence to support said Ã¢â‚¬Å“evolutionÃ¢â‚¬Â, it (evolution) remains a hypothesis/model discussed in the abstract. And, when defended by evolutionists dogmatically, zealously and feverously as a fact or facts, is nothing more than another religion.

I dont suppose you have tried googling for evidence yet have you? I'm having trouble sorting through all the sites, Im assuming your wanting actual pictures and not references?And for the recordreÃ‚Â·liÃ‚Â·gion /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Show Spelled[ri-lij-uhn] Show IPAÃ¢â‚¬â€œnoun1.a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.2.a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.3.the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

I suppose you could lump evolution with the first one but you would have to only take the first line.

Third Ã¢â‚¬â€œ you photograph analogy is weak at best (therefore a non sequitur) because you can absolutely prove Ã¢â‚¬Å“empiricallyÃ¢â‚¬Â the identity of each and every person. But the evidence submitted for macroevolution is presupposed and assumed.

How could you prove empirically the identity? If someone found those photos would it be simple belief to connect the people?

One type of Ã¢â‚¬ËœEmpiricalÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ evidence would be Ã¢â‚¬Å“gradual transitional fossils showing a lizard type animal Ã¢â‚¬ËœevolvingÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ into a bird type animalÃ¢â‚¬Â. This does not imply a Ã¢â‚¬Å“lizard type animalÃ¢â‚¬Â, then all of a sudden an animal with presupposed mixed features, then all of a sudden (again) a bird type animal. That would be macroevolution of the gaps, and these gaps are too wide for even the bondo of imagination to fill

Ok so how big a gap is too big? I very much doubt we can find a line of fossils showing even every 100 generations due to the probability of fossilizing being so low.

Further, you can indeed submit Ã¢â‚¬Ëœexperiments on evolutionÃ¢â‚¬â„¢, but absolutely none have provided Ã¢â‚¬ËœempiricalÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ evidence to support Ã¢â‚¬ËœmacroÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ thus far. So, if you wish to provide them, you can, but will oyu be willing to admit the fallaciousness built into them as they are pointed out?

Yes i realized after i posted that the experiments i was thinking about only really proved microevolution which we both agree on. The problem with macro is indeed time and so i suppose your right in saying that( at least right now) there is no EMPIRICAL evidence. That isnt to say there is no evidence altogether but in terms of experiments there hasn't been enough time and there probably wont be for a long time.

Further, when you attempt to separate the historical Jesus from the spiritual Jesus, based simply on your Ã¢â‚¬Å“beliefsÃ¢â‚¬Â and totally ignore the mounds of historical evidences, your analogy does not follow (non-sequitur).

What "beliefs" of mine are you referring to? Also i was wondering, aside from the biblical documents, is there other evidence for supernatural Jesus.

You assume that the eye witness cannot Ã¢â‚¬ËœsimplyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ describe what they saw. ALL of which, even when viewed today, would be considered miracles.

Actually i assume the eye witness did describe simply what they saw. And what makes you think that they would be considered miracles today? When my cousin bunches up paper in his hand and makes it disappear i dont believe it is a miracle, i believe he knows a clever magic trick.By the way do you apply the empirical standard to your evidence for Jesus?

For example:

When Jesus fed thousands from a few loaves and a few fish, by simply pulling them out of a basket: I would be interested in your current empirical scientific explanation.

When Jesus turned water into wine, without even touching it (i.e. by simply speaking it): I would be interested in your current empirical scientific explanation.

When Jesus raised Lazarus from death, by simply speaking it: I would be interested in your current empirical scientific explanation.

I could go on and on, but I think, when viewed honestly, youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll be able to see the fallacies in your argumentation and analogies.

Interesting that you mentioned the Lazarus one, i had recently had an idea on how that happened involving natural tricks. For the others i could only make speculation, i dont know enough about the conditions. Did you watch that Sherlock Holmes movie that came out a while back? I found it great because of the supernatural elements that were explained at the end. A man managed to come back to life, set someone on fire without touching him etc. All done with clever tricks that appeared supernatural.

And finally, what you think is Ã¢â‚¬Å“reasonable to be skepticalÃ¢â‚¬Â about, when you obviously pour so much assumption into your analogy, can easily be exposed for the fallacies youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve built into said opinion. The Ã¢â‚¬Å“critical thinkerÃ¢â‚¬Â looks from all angles, considers all the Ã¢â‚¬Å“evidencesÃ¢â‚¬Â, separates the dross of presupposed opinion, and considers then, only the facts, to arrive at truth.

What analogy are you referring to? I was explaining my position without comparing it to something else.

I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t Ã¢â‚¬Å“thinkÃ¢â‚¬Â any Ã¢â‚¬Ëœspecies evolves into another speciesÃ¢â‚¬â„¢. As I said; there is no empirical evidence to tie these assumptions together, therefore, until I see any empirical Ã¢â‚¬Å“realÃ¢â‚¬Â evidence to support said Ã¢â‚¬Å“evolutionÃ¢â‚¬Â, it (evolution) remains a hypothesis/model discussed in the abstract. And, when defended by evolutionists dogmatically, zealously and feverously as a fact or facts, is nothing more than another religion.

I dont suppose you have tried googling for evidence yet have you? I'm having trouble sorting through all the sites, Im assuming your wanting actual pictures and not references?And for the recordreÃ¢â‚¬Â¢liÃ¢â‚¬Â¢gion /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Show Spelled[ri-lij-uhn] Show IPAÃ¢â‚¬â€œnoun1.a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.2.a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.3.: a world council of religions.

I suppose you could lump evolution with the first one but you would have to only take the first line.

First Ã¢â‚¬â€œ I am very aware of what evolutionists posit as Ã¢â‚¬ËœevidenceÃ¢â‚¬â„¢. But you are the one making the claims that macroevolution is true, therefore it is incumbent upon YOU to provide said evidence. If you cannot provide said evidence, you are doing nothing more than submitting mere opinion.

Second Ã¢â‚¬â€œ The religion of evolution fits quite nicely under #1 of your reference definition Ã¢â‚¬Å“a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universeÃ¢â‚¬Â. But your definition is lacking additional lines.

Third Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Here is a more definitive definition (there are other as well):

World English Dictionary religion (rɪˈlɪdʒən) Ã¢â‚¬â€ n 1. belief in, worship of, or obedience to a supernatural power or powers considered to be divine or to have control of human destiny 2. any formal or institutionalized expression of such belief: the Christian religion 3. the attitude and feeling of one who believes in a transcendent controlling power or powers 4. chiefly RC Church the way of life determined by the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience entered upon by monks, friars, and nuns: to enter religion 5. something of overwhelming importance to a person: evolution is her religion 6. archaic a. the practice of sacred ritual observances b. sacred rites and ceremonies

[C12: via Old French from Latin religiō fear of the supernatural, piety, probably from religāre to tie up, from re- + ligāre to bind]

In the above lines, #5 fits evolutionism when the evolutionists attempts to defend macroevolution as a fact, dogmatically, fervently and zealously.

Third Ã¢â‚¬â€œ you photograph analogy is weak at best (therefore a non sequitur) because you can absolutely prove Ã¢â‚¬Å“empiricallyÃ¢â‚¬Â the identity of each and every person. But the evidence submitted for macroevolution is presupposed and assumed.

How could you prove empirically the identity? If someone found those photos would it be simple belief to connect the people?

Hmmmmm, quite simplyÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ You do the leg work by investigation, looking for facts, checking the backgrounds, questioning relatives, friends and other Ã¢â‚¬Å“eyewitnessesÃ¢â‚¬Â. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s pretty basic stuffÃ¢â‚¬Â¦

Oh, and by the way, that was a nice bit of goalpost shifting by Ã¢â‚¬Å“all of a suddenÃ¢â‚¬Â introducing the Ã¢â‚¬Å“If someone found those photosÃ¢â‚¬Â twist. But you did do one thing by introducing that, you did describe evolutionary investigation quite well. Looking at fossils and Ã¢â‚¬Å“simply believingÃ¢â‚¬Â it was true.

One type of Ã¢â‚¬ËœEmpiricalÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ evidence would be Ã¢â‚¬Å“gradual transitional fossils showing a lizard type animal Ã¢â‚¬ËœevolvingÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ into a bird type animalÃ¢â‚¬Â. This does not imply a Ã¢â‚¬Å“lizard type animalÃ¢â‚¬Â, then all of a sudden an animal with presupposed mixed features, then all of a sudden (again) a bird type animal. That would be macroevolution of the gaps, and these gaps are too wide for even the bondo of imagination to fill

Ok so how big a gap is too big? I very much doubt we can find a line of fossils showing even every 100 generations due to the probability of fossilizing being so low.

The actual gap that evolution has to surmount is too big! And everything in-between is rife with faith statements and presupposed guesses. Further, your Ã¢â‚¬ËœdoubtÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ should be your first clue.

Further, you can indeed submit Ã¢â‚¬Ëœexperiments on evolutionÃ¢â‚¬â„¢, but absolutely none have provided Ã¢â‚¬ËœempiricalÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ evidence to support Ã¢â‚¬ËœmacroÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ thus far. So, if you wish to provide them, you can, but will oyu be willing to admit the fallaciousness built into them as they are pointed out?

Yes i realized after i posted that the experiments i was thinking about only really proved microevolution which we both agree on. The problem with macro is indeed time and so i suppose your right in saying that( at least right now) there is no EMPIRICAL evidence. That isnt to say there is no evidence altogether but in terms of experiments there hasn't been enough time and there probably wont be for a long time.

And therein lies the rub for the evolutionist: Ã¢â‚¬Å“Assertum Non Est DemonstratumÃ¢â‚¬Â means that you are asserting macro, but you have not provided evidence for macro. But you further reinforce the evidence of my assertion of Ã¢â‚¬Å“Argumentum ad FuturisÃ¢â‚¬Â with the above statement Ã¢â‚¬Ëœat least not right nowÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ and Ã¢â‚¬Å“there probably wonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t be for a long timeÃ¢â‚¬â„¢Ã¢â‚¬Â¦ this is basically a prayer to the future for evidence to support your assertion.

Further, when you attempt to separate the historical Jesus from the spiritual Jesus, based simply on your Ã¢â‚¬Å“beliefsÃ¢â‚¬Â and totally ignore the mounds of historical evidences, your analogy does not follow (non-sequitur).

What "beliefs" of mine are you referring to?

If you go back to your statement that I was referring to, youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢d see where you made a Ã¢â‚¬Å“beliefÃ¢â‚¬Â statement.

Also i was wondering, aside from the biblical documents, is there other evidence for supernatural Jesus.

Absolutely! There are many historical witnesses to miracles over the centuries, just as there are contemporaneous miracles for the supernatural Jesus. I, myself have been witness to many miracles that point directly to the supernatural Jesus. But, we are discussing the Biblical historicity of Jesus, as we not? That is what you were making Ã¢â‚¬Å“belief statementsÃ¢â‚¬Â against.

You assume that the eye witness cannot Ã¢â‚¬ËœsimplyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ describe what they saw. ALL of which, even when viewed today, would be considered miracles.

Actually i assume the eye witness did describe simply what they saw. And what makes you think that they would be considered miracles today? When my cousin bunches up paper in his hand and makes it disappear i dont believe it is a miracle, i believe he knows a clever magic trick.By the way do you apply the empirical standard to your evidence for Jesus?

So, you are attempting to make your cousin analogous to Jesus? Or is this another non sequitur? Wadding up paper and making it disappear is analogous speaking someone back to life? This should be a very revealing discussion.

For example:

When Jesus fed thousands from a few loaves and a few fish, by simply pulling them out of a basket: I would be interested in your current empirical scientific explanation.

When Jesus turned water into wine, without even touching it (i.e. by simply speaking it): I would be interested in your current empirical scientific explanation.

When Jesus raised Lazarus from death, by simply speaking it: I would be interested in your current empirical scientific explanation.

I could go on and on, but I think, when viewed honestly, youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll be able to see the fallacies in your argumentation and analogies.

Interesting that you mentioned the Lazarus one, i had recently had an idea on how that happened involving natural tricks. For the others i could only make speculation, i dont know enough about the conditions. Did you watch that Sherlock Holmes movie that came out a while back? I found it great because of the supernatural elements that were explained at the end. A man managed to come back to life, set someone on fire without touching him etc. All done with clever tricks that appeared supernatural.

Hmmmmm, I find it quite interesting that I was asking for Ã¢â‚¬Å“your current empirical scientific explanationÃ¢â‚¬Â, and you provide red herrings, and/or equivocations? Therefore, I will humor you and say Ã¢â‚¬Å“no, I didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t watch that Sherlock Holmes movie that came out a while backÃ¢â‚¬ÂÃ¢â‚¬Â¦. Please explainÃ¢â‚¬Â¦

And finally, what you think is Ã¢â‚¬Å“reasonable to be skepticalÃ¢â‚¬Â about, when you obviously pour so much assumption into your analogy, can easily be exposed for the fallacies youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve built into said opinion. The Ã¢â‚¬Å“critical thinkerÃ¢â‚¬Â looks from all angles, considers all the Ã¢â‚¬Å“evidencesÃ¢â‚¬Â, separates the dross of presupposed opinion, and considers then, only the facts, to arrive at truth.

What analogy are you referring to? I was explaining my position without comparing it to something else.

ZendraÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ Whenever you explain your position, you are always comparing it to something/someone else. You do realize that, do you not?

ZendraÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ I used to be a contributor to Wikipedia. I am very familiar with the evolutionary leanings and liberal interpretations and sometimes fallacious (non-parsed and non-vetted) sources being used there.

Further, I am aware of all the arguments evolutionists attempt to promulgate as fact. But the thing is this, I am not calling on Wikipedia to answer for their assertions; I am calling on YOU to back up your assertions with facts, and to explain them cogently! I can link to sources all day long and have you chase them around. But then again, that wouldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t be conversation between us, would it!

I have already done quite a bit of homework on these subjects, as I have been at this a very long time. I am still learning every day, and I read quite extensively on many diverse subjects every day (and IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m not talking about Wikipedia).

First Ã¢â‚¬â€œ I am very aware of what evolutionists posit as Ã¢â‚¬ËœevidenceÃ¢â‚¬â„¢. But you are the one making the claims that macroevolution is true, therefore it is incumbent upon YOU to provide said evidence. If you cannot provide said evidence, you are doing nothing more than submitting mere opinion.

I understand that and I'm sorry for seeming to be dodging around it. I think I'll start with the fossil record especially concerning the whale and horse seeing as we have a pretty good line for them. Im not sure if you checked that link i posted but heres another Evo Horses

Hmmmmm, quite simplyÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ You do the leg work by investigation, looking for facts, checking the backgrounds, questioning relatives, friends and other Ã¢â‚¬Å“eyewitnessesÃ¢â‚¬Â. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s pretty basic stuffÃ¢â‚¬Â¦

I had meant found as in side of the road found, where you would not know the relatives and friends. In the same way that we find fossils. I was trying to get at that we make the links by spotting similarities, we may not know but we can work out the most likely possibility.

Oh, and by the way, that was a nice bit of goalpost shifting by Ã¢â‚¬Å“all of a suddenÃ¢â‚¬Â introducing the Ã¢â‚¬Å“If someone found those photosÃ¢â‚¬Â twist. But you did do one thing by introducing that, you did describe evolutionary investigation quite well. Looking at fossils and Ã¢â‚¬Å“simply believingÃ¢â‚¬Â it was true.

I wasn't trying to goalshift. As i said above I was trying to represent how we link fossils. When you said how we knew who the photos were off i felt you were missing my point so i tried to narrow it by saying they were found. And i'm surprised you felt it was simply believing. Like I said before we actually use reasoning to work out the links.

The actual gap that evolution has to surmount is too big! And everything in-between is rife with faith statements and presupposed guesses. Further, your Ã¢â‚¬ËœdoubtÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ should be your first clue.

I hope your not implying that because we cant find one fossil the organism didn't exist. I dont need a photo of my grandmother to know she existed. the fact that i have a great grandmother and a mother i can conclude there was an in between generation.

So, you are attempting to make your cousin analogous to Jesus? Or is this another non sequitur? Wadding up paper and making it disappear is analogous speaking someone back to life? This should be a very revealing discussion.

You had stated that the miracles Jesus performed would be considered miracles today. I was pointing out that in fact nowadays when we see a 'miracle' we dont assume they are supernatural but instead believe them to be a clever trick.

Hmmmmm, I find it quite interesting that I was asking for Ã¢â‚¬Å“your current empirical scientific explanationÃ¢â‚¬Â, and you provide red herrings, and/or equivocations? Therefore, I will humor you and say Ã¢â‚¬Å“no, I didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t watch that Sherlock Holmes movie that came out a while backÃ¢â‚¬ÂÃ¢â‚¬Â¦. Please explainÃ¢â‚¬Â¦

I stated that i didn't have an explanation due to lack of information. I refereed to Sherlock Holmes because it is an excellent example of these supernatural acts which we are unable to explain, being explained with no supernatural intervention needed.

ZendraÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ Whenever you explain your position, you are always comparing it to something/someone else. You do realize that, do you not?

No in fact i dont sorry, please enlighten me.

ZendraÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ I used to be a contributor to Wikipedia. I am very familiar with the evolutionary leanings and liberal interpretations and sometimes fallacious (non-parsed and non-vetted) sources being used there.

Further, I am aware of all the arguments evolutionists attempt to promulgate as fact. But the thing is this, I am not calling on Wikipedia to answer for their assertions; I am calling on YOU to back up your assertions with facts, and to explain them cogently! I can link to sources all day long and have you chase them around. But then again, that wouldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t be conversation between us, would it!

I have already done quite a bit of homework on these subjects, as I have been at this a very long time. I am still learning every day, and I read quite extensively on many diverse subjects every day (and IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m not talking about Wikipedia).

Fair enough, what do you take as fact. Evolution is generally accepted as fact yet we are debating it here. I dont really have access to physical evidence so thats why i refer to sites. Im perfectly happy to explain things.

If you go back to your statement that I was referring to, youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢d see where you made a Ã¢â‚¬Å“beliefÃ¢â‚¬Â statement.

Sorry i couldn't find it, but then again i probably wont consider it a belief statement. Could you please provide the quote.

When you walk randomly through a forest you make your own path right? You didnt choose between multiple paths but chose each step.

Hi zendra,

You seem to be totally missunderstanding my point. Perhaps that is my fault as I am not as good at explaining things as others here.

Naturally, if I was to trip over my neighbor's cat, fall down the stairway and tumble out into the street then that would be the "path" I had taken - whether or not it was the result of something random.

However, since the evolution of a reptile into a bird would require a great number of steps in a specific direction, then it doesn't follow a random pattern. A reptile does not turn into a bird over night. It requires multiple steps.

If I start climbing up a ladder then, at any given point in time, I would always have three basic choices: to continue upwards, to stay on the rung I'm standing on, or to go back down again. Amazingly, that is what we are observing in nature, but RARELY within the same kind of animal. Some stay the same, some apparently undergo millions of changes, and some leave their environment, go into another, only to return again to their original environment.

What on earth would confine ONE type of animal to ONE survival path? A lizzard being chased by a preditor would develop faster legs long before developing the ability to fly. A lizzard that survives by jumping from branches would also survive by adapting its appetite to the abundance of food that obviously exists on the ground long before morphing into a bird.

Evolution is a fantasy. A fantasy that no one wants to reject.

I'm not sure if I will have the time to respond that much from now on, but I noticed that goldliger deals with this idea, primarily in point nr. 2, here

You seem to be totally missunderstanding my point. Perhaps that is my fault as I am not as good at explaining things as others here.

all good, thats why i like the internet, in reality i often rush and speak as i think.

Naturally, if I was to trip over my neighbor's cat, fall down the stairway and tumble out into the street then that would be the "path" I had taken - whether or not it was the result of something random.

However, since the evolution of a reptile into a bird would require a great number of steps in a specific direction, then it doesn't follow a random pattern. A reptile does not turn into a bird over night. It requires multiple steps.

If I start climbing up a ladder then, at any given point in time, I would always have three basic choices: to continue upwards, to stay on the rung I'm standing on, or to go back down again. Amazingly, that is what we are observing in nature, but RARELY within the same kind of animal. Some stay the same, some apparently undergo millions of changes, and some leave their environment, go into another, only to return again to their original environment.

What on earth would confine ONE type of animal to ONE survival path? A lizzard being chased by a preditor would develop faster legs long before developing the ability to fly. A lizzard that survives by jumping from branches would also survive by adapting its appetite to the abundance of food that obviously exists on the ground long before morphing into a bird.

The problem I feel you have( i may be wrong) is that you seem to be assuming there is are specific survival paths. In terms of the legs before wings thing, I think the theory is that feathers actually evolved for warmth first, when later mutations came it wasn't a great leap for arms to evolve into wings. Wouldn't a lizard that survives from jumping from branch to branch evolve to take advantage of the new food sources available to it up in the trees?

I get that lizard to bird would require many changes but there is no specific direction from one to the other. Birds are just what we call the things in our time. Perhaps it would help if you dont think of animals as separate species.

Sorry I wish i could finish but I'm in a rush. Maybe I'll be able to finish this post later if you want.

all good, thats why i like the internet, in reality i often rush and speak as i think.The problem I feel you have( i may be wrong) is that you seem to be assuming there is are specific survival paths. In terms of the legs before wings thing, I think the theory is that feathers actually evolved for warmth first, when later mutations came it wasn't a great leap for arms to evolve into wings. Wouldn't a lizard that survives from jumping from branch to branch evolve to take advantage of the new food sources available to it up in the trees?

I get that lizard to bird would require many changes but there is no specific direction from one to the other. Birds are just what we call the things in our time. Perhaps it would help if you dont think of animals as separate species.

Sorry I wish i could finish but I'm in a rush. Maybe I'll be able to finish this post later if you want.

If there are no specific paths where are the other attempts via random mutation to bring about legs, wings etc... All we ever see in the fossil record are the ones with the proper design. If evolution is about the survival of the fittest where are the attempts that were not-so-fit... they should exist as well yet we do not find them... Unless evolutionists assume that the first random mutation that occured was the correct one and thereafter and so forth

First Ã¢â‚¬â€œ I am very aware of what evolutionists posit as Ã¢â‚¬ËœevidenceÃ¢â‚¬â„¢. But you are the one making the claims that macroevolution is true, therefore it is incumbent upon YOU to provide said evidence. If you cannot provide said evidence, you are doing nothing more than submitting mere opinion.

I understand that and I'm sorry for seeming to be dodging around it. I think I'll start with the fossil record especially concerning the whale and horse seeing as we have a pretty good line for them. Im not sure if you checked that link i posted but heres another Evo Horses

Once again you are simply positing opinion instead of facts. The so-called Ã¢â‚¬Å“fossil recordÃ¢â‚¬Â is nothing more than a gap-filled man-made record of supposition, and nothing more. As I recall, I said something like Ã¢â‚¬Å“continual transitional fossils showing one animal Ã¢â‚¬ËœevolvingÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ into anotherÃ¢â‚¬Â, and you have provided nothing of the sort.

Further, you have done nothing more than posting a link instead of providing the evidence that you need to support your assertions. Nor have you made the argument yourself, but are relying on wikapedia to make your case. AND you seemingly thought that by simply posting a link to a site with massive amounts of Ã¢â‚¬ËœsuppositionsÃ¢â‚¬â„¢, that this could inundate the reader (this is called Ã¢â‚¬ËœElephant hurlingÃ¢â‚¬â„¢, or Ã¢â‚¬ËœdumptruckingÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ etcÃ¢â‚¬Â¦? This is less than you need to be doing to support your assertions. If you want to argue the fossil record, or the fossil record of the horse (or whale), IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll be more than happy to do so. In fact, if you want to take the time and argue Ã¢â‚¬Ëœpoint-for-pointÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ the link you provided, that will be fine as well. But my question then becomes; do you really want to tackle so humongous a task? Sometimes when you posit such a link as evidence, you have then taken on the responsibility to provide support for every statement at that site. Further, it is contrary to forum rules to simply post a link as evidence or arguement. (NOTE: Please read the forum rules).

I would really like to see you present FACTUAL and EMPIRICAL Ã¢â‚¬Å“evidence for the evolution of the horseÃ¢â‚¬Â, which you didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t do above. All you did was throw up a vague and general link. So, for example; I would love to see your Ã¢â‚¬Å“empirical and factualÃ¢â‚¬Â evidence linking the Eohippus (Hyracotherium), through the Hyracotherium, Mesohippus, and Merychippus (etceteraÃ¢â‚¬Â¦) to the Equus, the modern horse. And, because you are making the claim, it is your responsibility to provide said evidence (not simply posting links). **AND**I would really like to see you present FACTUAL and EMPIRICAL Ã¢â‚¬Å“evidence for the evolution of the whaleÃ¢â‚¬Â, which you didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t do above either. All you did was throw up a vague and general link. So, for example; I would love to see your Ã¢â‚¬Å“empirical and factualÃ¢â‚¬Â evidence linking the Maiacetus inuus, Rodhocetus and Artiocetus (etceteraÃ¢â‚¬Â¦) to the modern whale. And, because you are making the claim, it is your responsibility to provide said evidence (not simply posting links).

Hmmmmm, quite simplyÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ You do the leg work by investigation, looking for facts, checking the backgrounds, questioning relatives, friends and other Ã¢â‚¬Å“eyewitnessesÃ¢â‚¬Â. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s pretty basic stuffÃ¢â‚¬Â¦

I had meant found as in side of the road found, where you would not know the relatives and friends. In the same way that we find fossils. I was trying to get at that we make the links by spotting similarities, we may not know but we can work out the most likely possibility.

Anything that is not is not factual is suppositionalÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ And like your photograph analogy, the model of macroevolution is built upon assumptions and presuppositions, not facts. Just as Ã¢â‚¬Ëœspotting similaritiesÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ is suppositional and not factual. Again, this is pretty basic stuff.

Oh, and by the way, that was a nice bit of goalpost shifting by Ã¢â‚¬Å“all of a suddenÃ¢â‚¬Â introducing the Ã¢â‚¬Å“If someone found those photosÃ¢â‚¬Â twist. But you did do one thing by introducing that, you did describe evolutionary investigation quite well. Looking at fossils and Ã¢â‚¬Å“simply believingÃ¢â‚¬Â it was true.

I wasn't trying to goalshift. As i said above I was trying to represent how we link fossils. When you said how we knew who the photos were off i felt you were missing my point so i tried to narrow it by saying they were found. And i'm surprised you felt it was simply believing. Like I said before we actually use reasoning to work out the links.

That is still a moving of the goalposts, as what you are now stating, is not what you previously stated (and insisting that I was missing your point, only points out that you didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t describe your analogy cogently, logically, and reasonably). And, as I pointed out above; Ã¢â‚¬Ëœspotting similaritiesÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ is NOT in any way analogous to connecting Ã¢â‚¬ËœfactsÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ to Ã¢â‚¬ËœfactsÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ with Ã¢â‚¬ËœfactsÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ as it would be with sound Ã¢â‚¬ËœfactualÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ investigations.

For example: The ONLY WAY to Ã¢â‚¬Ëœknow for a FACTÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ that the person in the first photograph, is the same as the person in the last photograph, is to connect the Ã¢â‚¬ËœfactsÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ (i.e. historical documentation), with the Ã¢â‚¬ËœfactsÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ (i.e. eyewitnesses), so as to support the conclusion of the first photograph with the last photograph (and every photograph in between) being that of the same person. Everything else is assumptive, and that of presupposition (i.e. Ã¢â‚¬Å“SUPPOSINGÃ¢â‚¬Â that the person in the first photograph is the Ã¢â‚¬Å“SAMEÃ¢â‚¬Â as the person I the last photograph) based upon your merely Ã¢â‚¬Å“spotting similaritiesÃ¢â‚¬ÂÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ Guess what; ALL PEOPLE HAVE SIMILARITIES! You do see that, do you not?

So, in fact, I wasnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t missing your point, I was pointing out the fallacies in your reasoning and conclusions.

Further: Using Ã¢â‚¬ËœreasoningÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ sans facts, or using Ã¢â‚¬ËœreasoningÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ to fill in the Ã¢â‚¬ËœgapsÃ¢â‚¬â„¢, is nothing more than guessing. Therefore you are doing nothing more than Ã¢â‚¬Å“believingÃ¢â‚¬Â when you are Ã¢â‚¬Å“reasoningÃ¢â‚¬Â without Ã¢â‚¬Å“factual supportÃ¢â‚¬Â. Not unlike the presuppositionalisim of macroevolution, and therein lies the ONLY similarity in your analogies. But, then again, I wouldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t think youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢d wish to use a bad example.

The actual gap that evolution has to surmount is too big! And everything in-between is rife with faith statements and presupposed guesses. Further, your Ã¢â‚¬ËœdoubtÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ should be your first clue.

I hope your not implying that because we cant find one fossil the organism didn't exist. I dont need a photo of my grandmother to know she existed. the fact that i have a great grandmother and a mother i can conclude there was an in between generation.

No, you are in fact Ã¢â‚¬Å“misrepresentingÃ¢â‚¬Â my statements. I am stating, quite factually, that if you donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t have the FACTS, you are merely guessing! I am, in fact SHOWING that because you are attempting to tie separate animals fossils (or fossil groups) together, across immense spans of time, with absolutely no evidence, that the stuff with which you fill your Ã¢â‚¬Å“gapsÃ¢â‚¬Â is that of Ã¢â‚¬Å“assumptionsÃ¢â‚¬Â, Ã¢â‚¬Å“presuppositionÃ¢â‚¬Â, Ã¢â‚¬Å“beliefsÃ¢â‚¬Â, and Ã¢â‚¬Å“faithÃ¢â‚¬Â.

Further, your Ã¢â‚¬ËœgrandmotherÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ analogy is a non sequitur as well: You, in fact either eye witnessed your grandmother, OR you are going on the trusted eyewitness of your parents and family for the reality of your grandmother(i.e. trustworthy eyewitness testimony of two or more people). AND you most likely have other Ã¢â‚¬Å“supporting documentationÃ¢â‚¬Â for your grandmother(i.e. birth certificate, marriage certificate, photographs of her with other people you know etcÃ¢â‚¬Â¦) . But, unfortunately for your argumentation and analogies, having evidence for your grandmother follows from my argument, not from yours. Therefore, your argument here is a non sequitur.

So, you are attempting to make your cousin analogous to Jesus? Or is this another non sequitur? Wadding up paper and making it disappear is analogous speaking someone back to life? This should be a very revealing discussion.

You had stated that the miracles Jesus performed would be considered miracles today. I was pointing out that in fact nowadays when we see a 'miracle' we dont assume they are supernatural but instead believe them to be a clever trick.

First - You need to look up the definition for Ã¢â‚¬Å“supernaturalÃ¢â‚¬ÂÃ¢â‚¬Â¦

Second - There is not even ONE miracle that Jesus performed, that you can explain Ã¢â‚¬Å“naturallyÃ¢â‚¬Â today.

Third - Your assumption of your cousins Ã¢â‚¬Å“magicÃ¢â‚¬Â trick is not analogous to ANY miracle that Jesus performed.

Conclusion Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Your analogy is a non sequitur.As I said; Ã¢â‚¬Å“This should be a very revealing discussionÃ¢â‚¬Â.

Hmmmmm, I find it quite interesting that I was asking for Ã¢â‚¬Å“your current empirical scientific explanationÃ¢â‚¬Â, and you provide red herrings, and/or equivocations? Therefore, I will humor you and say Ã¢â‚¬Å“no, I didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t watch that Sherlock Holmes movie that came out a while backÃ¢â‚¬ÂÃ¢â‚¬Â¦. Please explainÃ¢â‚¬Â¦

I stated that i didn't have an explanation due to lack of information. I refereed to Sherlock Holmes because it is an excellent example of these supernatural acts which we are unable to explain, being explained with no supernatural intervention needed.

A lack of information for what? Or is it that you are simply not accepting the evidence and information adduced and extant. There is absolutely NO Ã¢â‚¬Ëœlack of informationÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ as there is a plethora of historical and contemporaneous eyewitness support.

Further, if you are going to Ã¢â‚¬Å“claimÃ¢â‚¬Â that the miracles that Jesus performed are analogous to the pseudo-miracles in the Sherlock Holmes movie, you need to provide the evidences that support your assertion. Because simply saying so, does not make it so (Assertum Non Est Demonstratum). Lay the evidences side-by-side, and make the correlations, or admit that you were incorrect.

Again; This should be a very revealing discussionÃ¢â‚¬Â¦

ZendraÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ Whenever you explain your position, you are always comparing it to something/someone else. You do realize that, do you not?

No in fact i dont sorry, please enlighten me.

Sure, prepare to be Ã¢â‚¬Å“enlightenedÃ¢â‚¬Â:

Every line of reasoning of yours above (or your Ã¢â‚¬Å“explaining of your positionsÃ¢â‚¬Â) are compared to, or up-and-against, my reasoning (my explaining of my positions). You were/are attempting to Ã¢â‚¬Å“compareÃ¢â‚¬Â your Ã¢â‚¬Å“positionÃ¢â‚¬Â against my Ã¢â‚¬Å“positionÃ¢â‚¬Â; and I in turn am doing exactly the same.

If there are no specific paths where are the other attempts via random mutation to bring about legs, wings etc... All we ever see in the fossil record are the ones with the proper design

Which is the proper design? The wings of a bat or of a bird, and at that which bird?Any other 'attempts' at wings that did not work would have quickly been eradicated if they werent beneficial as the genes would not have been passed on. The attempt at wings would have occured in perhaps one organism( and thats assuming there was a single mutation for a wing). The chances of fossilisation are already low let alone a particular individual.

Evolution is a fantasy. A fantasy that no one wants to reject.

I find this interesting. What seems more of a fantasy?Small changes over time producing big changes.That someone suddenly created every complex thing on the universe.

ZendraÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ I used to be a contributor to Wikipedia. I am very familiar with the evolutionary leanings and liberal interpretations and sometimes fallacious (non-parsed and non-vetted) sources being used there.

Further, I am aware of all the arguments evolutionists attempt to promulgate as fact. But the thing is this, I am not calling on Wikipedia to answer for their assertions; I am calling on YOU to back up your assertions with facts, and to explain them cogently! I can link to sources all day long and have you chase them around. But then again, that wouldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t be conversation between us, would it!

I have already done quite a bit of homework on these subjects, as I have been at this a very long time. I am still learning every day, and I read quite extensively on many diverse subjects every day (and IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m not talking about Wikipedia).

Fair enough, what do you take as fact.

Fact: (noun)

1. Something known to be true - something that can be shown to be true, to exist, or to have happened2. Truth or Reality of something - the truth or actual existence of something, as opposed to the supposition of something or a belief about something (i.e. based on fact.3. Piece of information - a piece of information, e.g. a statistic or a statement of the truth

Truth: (Noun)

1. Something factual - the thing that corresponds to fact or reality2. True Quality - correspondence to fact or reality3. True Statement - a statement that corresponds to fact or reality4. Obvious Fact - something that is so clearly true that it hardly needs to be stated

The above ARE the litmus test for Ã¢â‚¬Å“factsÃ¢â‚¬ÂÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ I included Ã¢â‚¬Å“truthÃ¢â‚¬Â, as it is synonymous with Ã¢â‚¬Å“factÃ¢â‚¬Â! And everything else is assumed or presupposed.

Evolution is generally accepted as fact yet we are debating it here. I dont really have access to physical evidence so thats why i refer to sites. Im perfectly happy to explain things.

Just because something Ã¢â‚¬Å“generally accepted as factÃ¢â‚¬Â, does not make it a fact; and we are debating it here, because I have called you on your assertions, and you have provided absolutely NO Ã¢â‚¬Å“factsÃ¢â‚¬Â. (see definition of Ã¢â‚¬Å“factÃ¢â‚¬Â aboveÃ¢â‚¬Â). And now you are attempting to embark upon the Ã¢â‚¬Å“Argumentum ad PopulumÃ¢â‚¬Â logical fallacy to support your assertions. This flows hand-in-hand from the Ã¢â‚¬Å“Assertum Non Est DemonstratumÃ¢â‚¬Â logical fallacy (and vice versa).